The impact of health and wellness coaching on patient-important outcomes in chronic illness care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health and Wellness Coaching (HWC) may be beneficial in chronic condition care. We sought to appraise its effectiveness on quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy (SE), depression, and anxiety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized trials published January 2005 - March 2023 that compared HWC to standard clinical care or another intervention without coaching. We examined QoL, SE, depression, or anxiety outcomes. Meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Thirty included studies demonstrated that HWC improved QoL within 3 months (SMD 0.62 95 % CI 0.22-1.02, p = 0.002), SE within 1.5 months (SMD 0.38, 95 % CI 0.03-0.73, p = 0.03), and depression at 3, 6, and 12 months (SMD 0.67, 95 % CI 0.13-1.20, p = 0.01), (SMD 0.72, 95 % CI 0.19-1.24, p = 0.006), and (SMD 0.41, 95 % CI 0.09-0.73, p = 0.01) Certainty in the evidence for most outcomes was either very low or low primarily due to the high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: HWC improves QoL, SE, and depression across chronic illness populations. Future research needs to standardize intervention reporting and outcome collection. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future HWC studies should standardize intervention components, reporting, and outcome measures, apply relevant chronic illness theories, and aim to follow participants for greater than one year.

Does Health Coaching Grow Capacity in Cancer Survivors? A Systematic Review.

Interventions that grow patient capacity to do the work of health care and life are needed to support the health of cancer survivors. Health coaching may grow capacity. This systematic review of health coaching interventions explored coaching's ability to grow capacity of cancer survivors. The authors included randomized trials or quasi-experimental studies comparing coaching to alternative interventions, and adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were analyzed using the Theory of Patient Capacity (BREWS: Capacity is affected by factors that influence ability to reframe Biography ["B"], mobilize or recruit Resources ["R"], interact with the Environment of care ["E"], accomplish Work ["W"]), and function Socially ["S"]). The authors reviewed 2210 references and selected 12 studies (6 randomized trials and 6 pre-post). These studies included 1038 cancer survivors, mean age 57.2 years, with various type of cancers: breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung. Health coaching was associated with improved quality of life, mood, and physical activity but not self-efficacy. Classified by potential to support growth in patient capacity, 67% of included studies reported statistically significant outcomes that support "B" (quality of life, acceptance, spirituality), 75% "R" (decreased fatigue, pain), 67% "W" (increased physical activity), and 33% "S" (social deprivation index). None addressed changing the patient's environment of care. In cancer survivors, health coaching improved quality of life and supported patient capacity by several mechanisms, suggesting an important role for "Capacity Coaching." Future interventions that improve self-efficacy and patients' environments of care are needed. Capacity Coaching may improve health and quality of life of cancer survivors.

Health coaching interventions for persons with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic conditions are increasingly more common and negatively impact quality of life, disability, morbidity, and mortality. Health coaching has emerged as a possible intervention to help individuals with chronic conditions adopt health supportive behaviors that improve both quality of life and health outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We planned a systematic review and meta-analysis of the contemporary health coaching literature published in the last decade to evaluate the effect of health coaching on clinically important, disease-specific, functional, and behavioral outcomes. We will include randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies that compared health coaching to alternative interventions or usual care. To enable adoption of effective interventions, we aim to explore how the effect of intervention is modified by the intervention components, delivering personnel (i.e., health professionals vs trained lay or peer persons), dose, frequency, and setting. Analysis of intervention outcomes will be reported and classified using an existing theoretical framework, the Theory of Patient Capacity, to identify the areas of patients' capacity to access and use healthcare and enact self-care where coaching may be an effective intervention. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesize evidence to inform the practice of health coaching by providing evidence on components and characteristics of the intervention essential for success in individuals with chronic health conditions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016039730.